I see an analogy to the airline industry which is going through entertainment changes right now.
They're accepting that the screen-in-the-back-of-the-seat can't compete with users own devices. So they're ripping them out and installing locally streamed content over wifi. This is a good thing. Car manufacturers could learn something from this.
My truck was actually new from the dealership. It's pretty feature-free, mostly because I really wanted a manual transmission, and they don't include features and manual transmissions in the same truck at the same time.
Ditto the Mazda 5 circa 2009. We could have one of many options with an automatic transmission, or the manual car. There was one manual car, one colour, one feature set. We got the manual car.
>learning how to do the processes needed to attain that level of reliability for decades
Why is it then, that when I look at the electronics in a car, it appears to be optimized for cost rather than reliability? I've designed life critical electronics which must not fail. Car electronics looks nothing like that. I've designed cheap-ass cordless phones for indoors use that seem to have better water ingress resistance than car electronics intended for outdoors use.
My last vehicle was an F350 pickup truck. It stopped trucking one day when the fuel injection control module stopped doing what it does. Why was there not adequate overvoltage protection on the outputs to a reactive load?
Reliability certainly may be an aspect of car design, but when it comes to car electronics, it is subservient to cost at all times.
>The argument against PTC is that the cost of these fatalities is only a few million dollars each, and PTC would cost several billion dollars, so it's uneconomic. That's all there is to it.
A few billion? Give me the contract. For a few billion, I'll happily install a gps equipped microprocessor board into each train that gets periodic updates of speed limits at each location. It sounds like a 10's of millions to me. Mostly for the development of a reliable unit, rather than the deployment.
To be fair, on the London underground the opening and closing of the doors is a pretty hard thing to get right without a human to work out what it going on between the platform and the train. I wouldn't want some AI algorithm with a camera deciding when to close the doors.
Why R? The R syntax is deranged. Python is at least more normal for programming. Why not have a.NET like set of language-neutral libraries to interface with this in-memory whatever-it-is feature and let hackers plug in their own languages? Why bake any one language into the database?
This. The language is horrible. What R has going for it is (1) some quite good graph plotting and (2) Support any statistical function you can think of, since every statistics researcher works in R and so the functions a available. No other statistics product comes close.
A python statistics library with some funky C linkage to the R library would take over in milliseconds when people find they can get all the stats functions while being able to program in a sane language.
To the evolutionist the egg that was laid by a non chicken but mutated to a chicken means that the egg came first.
but to a creationist the chicken was created by God fully capable of reproducing its kind so the chicken came first.
It all depends on your point of view as either a creationist or an evolutionist which you believe in.
But the creationist view is wrong. So it doesn't actually depend on what people think. There are facts and falsehoods. What people think doesn't alter facts into falsehoods or falsehoods into facts.
"The new deterrence research has been discussed favorably and uncritically by national news outlets and has been declared persuasive in leading academic journals and by prominent scholars and jurists. Legal academics, such as Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of the University of Chicago, find the new deterrence evidence "powerful" and "impressive." They couple it with "many decades of reliable data about [capital punishment's] deterrent effects" as the "foundation" of their argument, which holds that since "capital punishment powerfully deters killings," there is a moral imperative to aggressively prosecute capital crimes. Prof. Becker concurs, finding the evidence "persuasive," while Judge Richard Posner brushes aside worries about the possible execution of the innocent as we ramp up executions to achieve even greater deterrent effects. Twice, authors of some of the articles have appeared before the U.S. Congress, stating the case for deterrence."
I'm against the death penalty, but I'm willing to admit that there may be justifiable exceptions. Is this one of them? That was for the jury to decide, not me, but I certainly won't lose any sleep over their decision.
There are many people who deserve to die, but it doesn't mean the state should lower itself to the level of those who do. It's ok to say "They deserve to die" and "But we don't murder, so we'll just throw the perp in jail for life".
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not.
I demand the immediate release of the good security guy Dread Pirate Chris Roberts!
He's not that good. He let himself get caught.
Puffing out some smoke or fog should present a pretty effective scattering defense.
I don't drive your car.
I see an analogy to the airline industry which is going through entertainment changes right now.
They're accepting that the screen-in-the-back-of-the-seat can't compete with users own devices. So they're ripping them out and installing locally streamed content over wifi. This is a good thing. Car manufacturers could learn something from this.
My truck was actually new from the dealership. It's pretty feature-free, mostly because I really wanted a manual transmission, and they don't include features and manual transmissions in the same truck at the same time.
Ditto the Mazda 5 circa 2009. We could have one of many options with an automatic transmission, or the manual car. There was one manual car, one colour, one feature set. We got the manual car.
>learning how to do the processes needed to attain that level of reliability for decades
Why is it then, that when I look at the electronics in a car, it appears to be optimized for cost rather than reliability? I've designed life critical electronics which must not fail. Car electronics looks nothing like that. I've designed cheap-ass cordless phones for indoors use that seem to have better water ingress resistance than car electronics intended for outdoors use.
My last vehicle was an F350 pickup truck. It stopped trucking one day when the fuel injection control module stopped doing what it does. Why was there not adequate overvoltage protection on the outputs to a reactive load?
Reliability certainly may be an aspect of car design, but when it comes to car electronics, it is subservient to cost at all times.
To some of us, driving is more https://www.youtube.com/watch?... than https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I got an Allstate ad. Is that what you intended?
>The argument against PTC is that the cost of these fatalities is only a few million dollars each, and PTC would cost several billion dollars, so it's uneconomic. That's all there is to it.
A few billion? Give me the contract. For a few billion, I'll happily install a gps equipped microprocessor board into each train that gets periodic updates of speed limits at each location. It sounds like a 10's of millions to me. Mostly for the development of a reliable unit, rather than the deployment.
...most websites are an accessibility nightmare.
That's one of many reasons why our business website doesn't use javascript. What's seen can be read by a screen reader.
Senators don't ride trains
For 36 years, Senator Joe Biden commuted by Amtrak. If he were still a Senator he'd still be riding the train.
If he were still riding the train, he'd have spare time to study Neil Kinnock's other speeches to see which one he was going to plagiarize next.
Why? Is there something wrong with the bus?
The bus is not:
(a) Convertible
(b) In my garage
(c) Zippy
(d) Bright Orange (well some may be, but not where I live)
To be fair, on the London underground the opening and closing of the doors is a pretty hard thing to get right without a human to work out what it going on between the platform and the train. I wouldn't want some AI algorithm with a camera deciding when to close the doors.
That's what rpy2 is.
Thank you. I didn't know rpy2 existed.
Why R? The R syntax is deranged. Python is at least more normal for programming. Why not have a .NET like set of language-neutral libraries to interface with this in-memory whatever-it-is feature and let hackers plug in their own languages? Why bake any one language into the database?
This. The language is horrible. What R has going for it is (1) some quite good graph plotting and (2) Support any statistical function you can think of, since every statistics researcher works in R and so the functions a available. No other statistics product comes close.
A python statistics library with some funky C linkage to the R library would take over in milliseconds when people find they can get all the stats functions while being able to program in a sane language.
Which came first; the chicken or the egg???
To the evolutionist the egg that was laid by a non chicken but mutated to a chicken means that the egg came first.
but to a creationist the chicken was created by God fully capable of reproducing its kind so the chicken came first.
It all depends on your point of view as either a creationist or an evolutionist which you believe in.
But the creationist view is wrong. So it doesn't actually depend on what people think. There are facts and falsehoods. What people think doesn't alter facts into falsehoods or falsehoods into facts.
And you point is what? The death penalty from 35 years ago acts as a deterrent to murderers today? You are drunk.
You must mean something like securID token dongles because RSA keys do not weight anything and you can put thousands of them on one single USB dongle.
Whoosh doesn't suffice.
No whoosh. is671 is correct.
Maybe, but it might not play well with the huge percentage of mentally ill in the prisons.
There is disagreement over that.
"The new deterrence research has been discussed favorably and uncritically by national news outlets and has been declared persuasive in leading academic journals and by prominent scholars and jurists. Legal academics, such as Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of the University of Chicago, find the new deterrence evidence "powerful" and "impressive." They couple it with "many decades of reliable data about [capital punishment's] deterrent effects" as the "foundation" of their argument, which holds that since "capital punishment powerfully deters killings," there is a moral imperative to aggressively prosecute capital crimes. Prof. Becker concurs, finding the evidence "persuasive," while Judge Richard Posner brushes aside worries about the possible execution of the innocent as we ramp up executions to achieve even greater deterrent effects. Twice, authors of some of the articles have appeared before the U.S. Congress, stating the case for deterrence."
https://www.law.columbia.edu/l...
Those profs will be funded well by congress so long as they give the answers congress is wanting.
See also: List of countries by homicide rate.
Looks like the countries with the highest homicide rates don't have the death penalty.
Most of Europe is in the lowest homicide rate end of that table. They don't have the death penalty in EU countries.
Are you drunk?
I'm against the death penalty, but I'm willing to admit that there may be justifiable exceptions. Is this one of them? That was for the jury to decide, not me, but I certainly won't lose any sleep over their decision.
There are many people who deserve to die, but it doesn't mean the state should lower itself to the level of those who do.
It's ok to say "They deserve to die" and "But we don't murder, so we'll just throw the perp in jail for life".
Only Jack Horner can make a dinosaur out of a chicken egg.
When he was a child, he could make a plum out of a Christmas pie. It was a formative moment for him.
Only a chicken can make an egg. Your move.
Incorrect. The first egg that produced a chicken was laid by the evolutionary ancestor of the chicken.
Yes. This is true, but in the past. At this time, only chickens can make chicken eggs.
But it answers the question, which came first.
I categorize kitchen appliances into two categories: Those that can make chicken wings and those that can't.
Only a chicken can make chicken wings.
Only an egg can make chicken wings.
Only a chicken can make an egg. Your move.